Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

confluence_get_page_descendants

Retrieve all descendant pages under a specified Confluence page ID to explore page hierarchy and navigate content.

Instructions

Page descendants (GET /wiki/api/v2/pages/{id}/descendants).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "confluence_get_page_descendants"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo
limitNo
cursorNo
pageIdYesPage ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The HTTP GET in parentheses implies a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about whether descendants are returned recursively, how depth is interpreted, how cursor/limit pagination behaves, or what the response structure looks like. With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to meet it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and free of fluff, with the endpoint front-loaded. However, it is a bare fragment rather than a useful description, so the conciseness comes at the cost of important detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool involves a depth parameter, a cursor, and a limit, yet none of those behaviors are explained, and there is no output schema. An agent would need to guess at pagination and depth semantics, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%, with pageId being the only described parameter. The description adds no meaning for depth, limit, or cursor beyond what their names suggest, and it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('Page descendants') and gives the exact GET endpoint, so an agent can tell what data is being requested. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_page and get_pages_in_space by the word 'descendants', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as when a user wants descendants vs. a single page vs. all pages in a space. The tool name implies the use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools